Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: L. S. de Camp/WorldCon
Message-ID: <1000@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Sep-86 06:45:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.1000
Posted: Tue Sep 16 06:45:02 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Sep-86 22:14:21 EDT
References: <422@inuxm.UUCP> <1085@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Distribution: net
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 53
Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:165 net.sf-lovers:8519

In article <1085@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:

>Sorry, this is in the right thread but not in response to the proper
>message.  Concerning L. Sprague de Camp's justification for his Time letter,
>saying that the sexual revolution was about a change to a
>polygamous/hedonistic mating pattern: nothing could be further from the
>truth.  

Please note that this discussion was originally about the
justification for BOYCOTTING someone for their beliefs about
relationships, not about any problems Mr. deCamp might have 
with relationships. How do any 'warped desires' Mr. de Camp 
relate to the original discussion? Seems to me they have no
relevance to the correctness of his opinions.

>...  A person who feels stifled by years of a single monogamous
>relationship, suppressing all sexual feelings outside the relationship, will
>find his or her sexual desires tending more and more toward the suppressed
>forms of sex, and so will tend to link pleasure-seeking with polygamy; 

No, Tim: TIM MARONEY may feel he'd react this way. Note your
association of the word 'stifled' with 'monogamous:' interesting use
of words, no? You're trying to interpret deCamp's mindset when you
have no evidence other than your own feelings about a few hundred
words he's written and a remark at a convention.

>Note that I am not advocating sexual promiscuity for everyone.  I am almost
>entirely monogamous myself.  What I am saying is that the suppression of
>non-monogamous sexual desires doesn't work; pushing energy into the
>subconscious only makes it stronger at a later date.  These desires, even if
>they are never acted on, should be treated as natural and good, a part of
>life, and then the fatal suppression into the subconscious mind will not
>take place; so sexual desire will not become warped as it obviously has in
>de Camp's case.

I'm skeptical whenever people start talking about the 'subconscious'
and 'fatal suppression' and 'pushing energy' into the 'subconscious.'
I believe in these things about as much as I believe in astrology and
Santa Claus. What you're doing, Tim, is stating your own personal
theory and reifying it by using phrasing like 'it obviously has',
'should be treated,' 'suppression...doesn't work.'

Mr. de Camp is from an earlier generation, one that tended to hold quite
different views than you do about sexual matters. His views would have
been considered perfectly reasonable 30 years ago. I'll wager, Tim,
that when you're his age you'll retain a few beliefs from your youth,
some of which will be consigned to the ash heap of history along the
way. His misplaced regrets and incorrect (in your view) opinions are 
no reason to punish the man. I shudder to think of an America in which
punishment is doled out for 'incorrect thinking' of this sort, whether 
that punishment is coming from the right OR the left.

                               -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly